click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130320
20130320
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
] but the republicans -- but the republicans would only raise the debt ceiling if the president promised later spending cuts. if those were not passed by an arbitrary date, it would trigger the sequester, a doomsday scenario designed to cripple programs that both sides love. the democrats would see damaging reductions in education, national parks, vaccination programs, food inspection, even the national zoo while republicans would see cuts to everything they hold dear like the military. [laughter] the point is -- [cheers and applause] -- if the two sides failed to come to a compromise in march 2013 would come in likeÑi a lion and go out like a lion loose from the unguarded national zoo. it was a good plan as long as one of the sides didn't forget that it was a horrible plan. >> you know, look, we're talking about $85 billion.Ñi we borrow $85 billion every three days. this is three tenths of 1% of g.d.p. it's two cents on the dollar. >> the federal government is highly inefficient. it could use a 5% or 10% cut. >> stephen: that is a courageous stance by rudy giuliani. that eliminate only 280,000 jobs,
to the senate democrats not having to pass a budget in four year. under the debt ceiling in january, if the senate does not pass a budget then the senators will have their paychecks with held. it this is obviously, politically a hot potato. for him he does want, very much to have a certain amount of co-sponsors as well and they are worried about the impact of air traffic controllers by sequestration that went into ffect on march 1 the $85 billion of the across the bored spending. >> the spending for the rest of fiscal year 2013, how quickly is the house likely to take that up and pass it? >> i spoke to the house appropriation chairman and he says it is likely, unless there is last-minute changes that he does not know about the house will quickly move to bring the c.r. unchanged to the senate's floor and the house can move with lightning speed compared to the senate. so i think the flight path is clear in the house assuming there is no big changes to the senate's c.r. at this point, we have to get through -- what looks like right now to a thursday vote on the senator for the c.r. >>
within its means and require a congressional supermajority to raise taxes or raise the debt ceiling. now i heard colleagues across the aisle say, well, we can't pass a balanced budget amendment. that would tie congress's hands. well, that's the point. it would tie congress's hands from spending money we don't have, running up these dangerous debts, and being a wet blanket on economic growth and job creation. how do we know that government can live within its stphaoepbs well, vitter -- live within its means? well, virtually every state has some type of balanced budget requirement. why should the rules here in washington be any different? some across the aisle argue -- i think they actually believe this, i think they argue that embracing fiscal discipline will jeopardize the safety net. in fact, the opposite is true. if we don't embrace sensible fiscal discipline, our safety net programs will eventually collapse because we won't have the money to provide for the national security and we won't have the money to provide the safety net programs that we all agree are necessary for the most vul
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)